284844 - ###!!! ASSERTION: invalid divisor: 'Error', file nsTableFrame.cpp

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout: Tables, defect)

Description

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

###!!! ASSERTION: invalid divisor: 'Error', file nsTableFrame.cpp

STEPS TO REPRODUCE:
1. load attached testcase in a debug build


http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=mozilla/layout/tables/nsTableFrame.cpp&rev=3.610&root=/cvsroot&mark=3639#3603

Comment 1

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Attachment: Testcase

Comment 2

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

BTW, did I get the colors right? - I see that they are different in Opera ;-)

Comment 3

[Bernd]

its a dupe of or at least dependent on bug 197391

Comment 4

[Bob Clary [:bc] (inactive)]

confirmed on windowsxpsp2 in deerpark cvs build from 2005-07-02. also found on
nba.com. OS->ALL

Comment 5

[Jesse Ruderman]

I hit his assertion frequently.

Comment 6

[Jesse Ruderman]

I hit this assertion frequently.

Comment 7

[Ben Karel [eschew]]

Attachment: shot in the dark

I think the colors in the testcase are reversed. IE 6, IE 7, Safari, and Opera all render the table as red, not green.

Anyways, the attached patch takes care of the assertion and causes us to render the testcase identically to the above browsers. On more complicated testcases, with an "empty" row followed by a row with style height, IE 6 and 7 both do their own (completely weird) thing, while this patch gives us parity with Opera and Safari on the more complex case.

Warning: comment in the patch is probably completely bogus.

Comment 8

[Ben Karel [eschew]]

Attachment: more complex case: 25px

On this, Safari and Opera (and us w/ patch) render identically.

Comment 9

[Ben Karel [eschew]]

Attachment: more complex case: 25%

Safari and Gecko render this identically with the 25px case.
Opera's rendering is completely different than the 25px case, closer to IE 6 and IE 7.
IE 6 and IE 7 render this the same as with their own rendering of the 25px case, which is not the same as Safari and Gecko's rendering.

Whee edge cases.

Comment 10

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

I suspect the correct behavior here involves a balancing algorithm that looks a lot more like the way we do width distribution than the current code does; some ideas in bug 359481.

That said, that isn't going to happen for 1.9, so small fixes that improve behavior are still welcome.

If you want review on the patch, please use the patch flags to request it.

Comment 11

[Ben Karel [eschew]]

Comment on attachment 278084 [details] [diff] [review]
shot in the dark

Okay, yeah, this patch is more or less completely bogus.

Bernd is right, this bug is pretty much a dupe of 197391. Moving future work there.

Comment 12

[Jesse Ruderman]

FIXED by the patch in bug 197391.

Comment 13

[Jesse Ruderman]

I checked in the first testcase as a crashtest.  Do the other testcases want to be crashtests or reftests, or are they covered by Ben's set of reftests?